/p/ - Photography » Thread #3069737

[60 / 24 / ?]

POLAROIDS

Anonymous Thu 04 May 2017 21:35:46 No.3069737 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3069766 >>3070008 >>3070010 >>3070144 >>3073814

Anyone here shoots polaroids?

i dont have anything to do with photography but i found an old 635CL in the basement and bought a few films. took 3 pictures by now

>one of my and my roommates
>one of a few friends of mine and me drinking beer
>one of a radiator my roommate broke and which is leaking water everywhere at this very moment

anyways, anyone here still uses them, for fun or so?

fucking cuck !!L1lx81epp6B

fucking cuck !!L1lx81epp6B Thu 04 May 2017 21:44:49 No.3069745 Report

Quoted By: >>3069746

What film are you using? If it's Polaroid, I've got some bad news.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 May 2017 21:46:10 No.3069746 Report

Quoted By:

>>3069745
i bought a few impossible project films. mostly color, but one black and white.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 May 2017 22:29:36 No.3069766 Report

Quoted By: >>3070141

>>3069737
of all forms of photography... this is likely one of the most dead.
It's more of a form of novelty than anything now. Not only that but it is relatively expensive to keep doing it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 26588061461_15a8c16586_k.jpg, 704KiB, 1582x2048

Anonymous Fri 05 May 2017 08:01:37 No.3070008 Report

Quoted By: >>3070137

>>3069737
I have a Polaroid SLR 690 and I absolutely love the thing. It's one of best Polaroid camera you can get and it works great, but here is the problem with Polaroids: they have (some) pretty amazing cameras, very nice auto exposures, however the original film they used had been discontinued for almost a decade and all we have right now is this Impossible Project shit that costs ~$3 per shot, terrible emulsions, uncontrollable color shifts and really, really subpar sharpness. And you know what the worst thing is? They are not even "instant" films - color film takes about 30 minutes to develop and it's extremely sensitive to light and temperature, hell, I can get an entire fucking roll of 135 color film developed in 30 mins. I don't even know why I am still shooting Polaroid.
Here is a Polaroid picture I took last year, if you like this kind of look then go for it, but I must say I have got enough of this bullshit already.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 30610445734_1e9fd03abc_k.jpg, 1MiB, 1439x2048

Anonymous Fri 05 May 2017 08:05:42 No.3070010 Report

Quoted By: >>3076212

>>3069737
If you are serious about instant photography, get a packfilm camera or one of those Polaroid peel-apart film backs for your MF/LF cameras. The peel-apart film did discontinued in 2016 but they are still available on the market with a similar price to the Impossible Project film so it's still okay to buy them and try them out.
Pic related, it's a scan of a FP-100 negative I recovered last year.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 May 2017 13:37:20 No.3070137 Report

Quoted By: >>3070138

>>3070008
thb, hearing that instant project film is trash bummed me out a little. i can sense some small color shifts on the edges of my pictures, but then again i did only buy them so i can snap some memories of stuff that happened, you know, nothing artsy or photographically valueable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 May 2017 13:38:22 No.3070138 Report

Quoted By:

>>3070137
*impossible project

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 May 2017 13:46:34 No.3070141 Report

Quoted By:

>>3069766
Polaroid was always a novelty.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 6a00e551a95fd088330163019d998b97 (...).jpg, 24KiB, 250x325

Anonymous Fri 05 May 2017 13:49:24 No.3070144 Report

Quoted By: >>3070194 >>3072400 >>3075565

>>3069737
I own two SX-70 because they are beautiful cameras.

Bought some impossible project film a couple of years ago to use with them, but the results were terrible considering how much I paid for the film.

The cameras are great display pieces though, and with two you can have one folded, and one open.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 May 2017 16:01:35 No.3070194 Report

Quoted By: >>3070318 >>3072241

>>3070144
can you tell me whats so bad about the IP films?
seriously, they dont seem too bad for me, apart from the long development. but then again, i can not really remember what instand pictures looked like before.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 May 2017 21:45:26 No.3070318 Report

Quoted By: >>3070325

>>3070194
Color shift and bad sharpness

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 May 2017 21:53:33 No.3070325 Report

Quoted By: >>3070335

>>3070318
>color shift

do you mean after they developed? since i plan to keep them for quite some time, i hope they dont detoriate. Or do you mean the colors arent the same as the real thing?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Capture d’écran 2017-05-0 (...).png, 200KiB, 367x375

Anonymous Fri 05 May 2017 22:26:39 No.3070335 Report

Quoted By:

IP film is pretty bad with all that color cast but I kind like it.

>>3070325 After 30 minutes or so they're pretty much fully developed and they will last as much any polaroid photo. I have some 30+ yo polaroids photographs around the house.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 May 2017 22:37:41 No.3070338 Report

Quoted By:

I'm too cheap for impossible film so I bought an Instax Wide. I'm good with it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 May 2017 23:44:33 No.3071048 Report

Quoted By:

bumpp

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 08 May 2017 14:57:08 No.3072241 Report

Quoted By: >>3072483

>>3070194
The ones I tried years ago had terrible colours, were faded, and half the time after a week the image would be completely faded away.

It could have been a bad batch, or just because they were still learning how to get the film right. But it put me off using them, because I had paid so much money, and ended up with basically nothing to show for it.
It was a lot of fun though, so I can't say it was a complete waste

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_20151019_220723_01.jpg, 489KiB, 2384x2908

Anonymous Mon 08 May 2017 19:44:59 No.3072400 Report

Quoted By: >>3072441 >>3072483

>>3070144
>buying them for display only
What the fuck
IP film isn't great but you can still get good results imo

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 08 May 2017 21:02:24 No.3072441 Report

Quoted By:

>>3072400
Nice shot!

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 08 May 2017 22:01:41 No.3072483 Report

Quoted By: >>3072961

>>3072400
I did buy them to use. The first one was broken, but had a really nice case with space for 2 cameras, and a bunch of flashes and film packs, so I kept it.

But like I said here >>3072241 The three film packs I used were terrible. No matter what I did they ended up fading away to pretty much nothing about a week after I took them.

I'll have to pick up some more IP film, because it seems it has improved a lot since I tried it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO New Doc 32_3.jpg, 261KiB, 2328x2856

Anonymous Tue 09 May 2017 18:24:14 No.3072961 Report

Quoted By: >>3073423 >>3075482

>>3072483
You have to use the darkest exposure possible and work your way up from there. I've rarely ever had to pass halfway except during night shots. You also have to develop them somewhere dark and warm.

I've had problems with dull colors but never anything as extreme as you described, and I've been using them since their first batch. You either had a bad camera or you literally didn't read any instructions or do any research before trying.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 May 2017 08:06:12 No.3073423 Report

Quoted By: >>3073622 >>3075482

>>3072961
I remember you from the last polaroid thread. Can you post moar sir?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO img048.jpg, 712KiB, 965x999

Anonymous Wed 10 May 2017 13:37:48 No.3073517 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 May 2017 17:26:00 No.3073622 Report

Quoted By: >>3073693

>>3073423
Thanks Anon! Unfortunately everything you saw in the last thread is pretty much everything I have worth posting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 May 2017 19:31:47 No.3073693 Report

Quoted By: >>3073809

>>3073622
I didn't save them though.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Cinderella Castle.png, 2MiB, 1038x1258

Anonymous Wed 10 May 2017 23:41:40 No.3073809 Report

Quoted By: >>3073945

>>3073693
My scans are all over the place, that last shot I posted was taken from my phone so I can repost the better quality version later.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1 - 8.jpg, 386KiB, 2088x2528

Anonymous Wed 10 May 2017 23:45:32 No.3073814 Report

Quoted By: >>3073860

>>3069737
I love Polaroid!
I shoot with a 600, an SX-70, and a Spectra!
Getting my SX-70 back tomorrow from repairs!
I just started a thread about Polaroid archiving so I'd love any feedback. >>3073807

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 6028832290_503a556d00_z.jpg, 166KiB, 574x597

Anonymous Thu 11 May 2017 00:04:17 No.3073825 Report

Quoted By: >>3073948

i really dont get the appeal of current polaroid. i mean having an actual instant photo is pretty cool, but all i see in this thread are photos with heavy color casts, smears, fades and all kind of grungy/lomo stuff.

as far as i know polaroids looked awesome once, is this simply not possible to attain anymore, so you have to settle for these super washed up polas?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 May 2017 00:56:13 No.3073860 Report

Quoted By: >>3073872 >>3073950

>>3073814
>>3073814
How much for a sx-70 repair.

I really want one but I won't pay 200 bucks for something that may not even be working or will die in my hands. I like my 636, but I want more focus control for portraits.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 May 2017 01:09:06 No.3073872 Report

Quoted By: >>3074233 >>3074281

>>3073860
I paid £100 for the camera (was sold as untested)
and paid £90 for a mirror fix (mold) and a replaced viewfinder (scratched), and new leather

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Go Go USA!.png, 2MiB, 1032x1251

Anonymous Thu 11 May 2017 03:50:11 No.3073945 Report

Quoted By: >>3076127

>>3073809

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Hiraoka Shrine.png, 2MiB, 1020x1276

Anonymous Thu 11 May 2017 03:52:41 No.3073948 Report

Quoted By: >>3076127

>>3073825
Yes and yes.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Pit Stop.png, 2MiB, 1047x1248

Anonymous Thu 11 May 2017 03:54:47 No.3073950 Report

Quoted By: >>3074281 >>3076127

>>3073860
I can't speak for all, but I bought mine for $140 and haven't had any problems with it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 May 2017 16:44:03 No.3074233 Report

Quoted By:

>>3073872
Just got it back and they didn't replace the bloody viewfinder! Literally the reason I sent it off!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 May 2017 17:31:44 No.3074281 Report

Quoted By: >>3075482

>>3073872
>>3073950
So is 150ish a reasonable price for a unstested one in good condition? I can get one for 200 tested + 3 month warranty from a local shop.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 May 2017 08:14:34 No.3074631 Report

Quoted By: >>3074632

Saw a colorpack iii and ee100 today at a thrift store, both going for peanuts.

I get that packfilm is nearly kill but which one would perform better?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 May 2017 08:23:37 No.3074632 Report

Quoted By: >>3074640

>>3074631
Definitely packfilm. It's discontinued but you can still buy them at a similar price point to the Impossible film

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 May 2017 08:47:46 No.3074640 Report

Quoted By: >>3075690

>>3074632
I know that lel, I meant between those two packfilm cameras which one would be the better option? Forgot to mention that it's actually the colorpack ii but is the earlier coated glass model.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO View from Saitonishi.png, 2MiB, 1032x1256

Anonymous Sat 13 May 2017 18:08:52 No.3075482 Report

Quoted By: >>3075692

>>3074281
Yes, although you can probably find one tested for $150. I'd say support your local shop; it's a 3 month warranty after all, you support a local business and they'll stand behind their product more than an online seller might.

>>3072961
>>3073423
Here's the higher quality version

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Polaroid70.jpg, 429KiB, 850x481

Anonymous Sat 13 May 2017 21:59:05 No.3075565 Report

Quoted By:

>>3070144
Don't keep it open, the rubber wil degrade very quickly that way.

Gorgeous little beasts either way.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 May 2017 02:23:55 No.3075690 Report

Quoted By:

>>3074640
Get Colorpack. These two cameras are equally shit but at least the Colorpack III is a bit more reliable than EE100. They are all zone-focusing camera but they are not that hard to focus.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 May 2017 02:29:25 No.3075692 Report

Quoted By:

>>3075482
The shutter remains open for how long? How did you to it with the auto exposure? Did you have to trick light sensor?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO tmp_18905-14947339587041075209280.jpg, 245KiB, 2000x1561

Anonymous Sun 14 May 2017 03:54:47 No.3075709 Report

Quoted By: >>3075713 >>3076127

I've been shooting all my instant on a Pathfinder modded for Instax wide, I've got an autofocus sx-70 that I need to feed. Anyone try out the Impossible black and white 2.0?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 May 2017 04:09:14 No.3075713 Report

Quoted By: >>3075744

>>3075709
Looks nice. Was it hard to mod?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 May 2017 05:16:20 No.3075744 Report

Quoted By:

>>3075713

Yes, I had to cut a good chunk out of the right side of the camera, attach the lomo belair instax back with velcro/scotchlock, light seal with weatherstrip/felt, tape a ground glass in a dead instax pack to re set the front standard for infinity focus, replace the rangefinder.....

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 May 2017 19:46:40 No.3076127 Report

Quoted By: >>3076207 >>3076412 >>3076431 >>3076603 >>3076614

>>3073950
>>3073948
>>3073945
How do you scan those pictures? Just put it on a scanner?
Also those white patches on the bottom.
Is this with IP film?
And if yes, did you got the IP frog tongue?

I am shooting with a Polaroid 660 AF and the IP-film and those white patches on the bottom on daylight pictures disappeared after I added the IP frog tongue, as IP-film is very, very light sensitive. Especially the first seconds of development are crucial to that.

>>3075709
Why do you want the discontinued second gen?
I'm trying at the moment to shoot with expired (since 3months), bought as Factory Seconds 4months ago, B&W 2.0.
Results are unpredictable. Some are fine, very many times undeveloped places, light shifts, burns.
The third gen B&W works just fine.

Gonna dump some pictures, when I figured out how to scan those.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 May 2017 22:07:19 No.3076198 Report

Quoted By: >>3076203

Just use a regular camera and apply a "looks like dated, faded shit" filter.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO pathetic skinner.jpg, 15KiB, 540x332

Anonymous Sun 14 May 2017 22:14:39 No.3076203 Report

Quoted By:

>>3076198
amazing post, friend

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 May 2017 22:27:32 No.3076207 Report

Quoted By:

>>3076127
Not the anon, but I have this problem only with the last couple of pictures every time. I don't use the frog tong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 May 2017 22:39:05 No.3076212 Report

Quoted By:

>>3070010
Tims m8
Where in Canada are you??

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 May 2017 07:11:40 No.3076412 Report

Quoted By:

>>3076127

Hmm I didn't realize the b&w was on its third version. I might give it a whirl

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 May 2017 07:59:39 No.3076431 Report

Quoted By:

>>3076127
>How do you scan those pictures? Just put it on a scanner?
Not that anon but I do so all the time, works perfectly.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Polaroid660AF-Nr005.jpg, 798KiB, 4200x5040

Anonymous Mon 15 May 2017 17:34:02 No.3076603 Report

Quoted By: >>3076604

Me: >>3076127
Posting a few pictures

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Polaroid660AF-Nr007.jpg, 924KiB, 4200x5124

Anonymous Mon 15 May 2017 17:35:31 No.3076604 Report

Quoted By: >>3076607

>>3076603

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Polaroid660AF-Nr014.jpg, 835KiB, 4200x5052

Anonymous Mon 15 May 2017 17:37:02 No.3076607 Report

Quoted By: >>3076609

>>3076604

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Polaroid660AF-Nr015.jpg, 700KiB, 4200x5064

Anonymous Mon 15 May 2017 17:38:30 No.3076609 Report

Quoted By: >>3076613

>>3076607

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Polaroid660AF-Nr010.jpg, 851KiB, 4200x5040

Anonymous Mon 15 May 2017 17:41:40 No.3076613 Report

Quoted By:

>>3076609

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 May 2017 17:51:00 No.3076614 Report

Quoted By:

>>3076127
Yeah, I use IP film and a regular scanner. I did not know that frog tongue would help with the white patches, thanks! Your photos are absolutely great as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 May 2017 21:15:56 No.3076699 Report

Quoted By: >>3076701

>Saw this in the shop today.

They really slapped the Polaroid on anything they could get their hands on.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO polaroid.jpg, 520KiB, 1000x676

Anonymous Mon 15 May 2017 21:17:54 No.3076701 Report

Quoted By:

>>3076699
forgot pic.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

POLAROIDS